Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Cousine Bette/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:23, 18 May 2009 [1].

La Cousine Bette edit

Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Ladies and gentlemen: Roll up and witness yet another glorious article about a novel by Honoré de Balzac, lovingly reconstructed and painstakingly researched by myself. Marvel at the thorough peer review executed by Figureskatingfan and Awadewit. Gaze with wonder at the lovely images and highly polished prose. Then lemme know what you think. Scartol • Tok 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, another excellent Balzac article (keep 'em coming!). I made a few brief edits a few weeks ago, and I see nothing else to fix. Lesgles (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image issues until resolved:

  • Sabucat's assertion that all trailers before the 1960s were not released with copyright notices is false once we watch the original trailers on Turner's site. There are some trailers that are not copyrighted (e.g. Gone with the Wind), but not this one. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can do this, but is it really necessary? (I'd like to confirm that it's essential before taking the time to do it.) Scartol • Tok 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia requires PD-US only as the minimum, whereas Commons requires PD-US and PD-source-of-origin as minimum. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, they've all been moved and replaced. Scartol • Tok 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These should be easily resolved, so looking forward to striking this oppose quickly. Jappalang (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your careful review, Jappalang! Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I peer reviewed this article and it has only improved since then. In my opinion, it is well-researched, comprehensive, and well-written. Let me just reiterate how wonderful it is that we have someone working on FAs outside the English literary tradition. Thank you, Scartol! Awadewit (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dargan, Kanes, Marceau and Pasco in refs but not notes. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to fold in texts that may be useful for other folks (what some list as "Additional reading") even if they don't show up in the notes. Do people think they need to be separated? (I originally planned to include some stuff from Kanes, but when I realized how long the article was, I reconsidered.) Scartol • Tok 14:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't Oppose based on sources that were in the refs but not the notes; I would if it were vice-versa & remained uncorrected. Having said that, I think it's just tidier and more logical to put such in an "Additional reading" section. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 15:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I found this article to be very well researched. The prose is excellent. The references to Shakespeare and Tolstoy will help make this article more relevant to a more traditional literary audience as well as encouraging reading outside the traditional English canon of writers. Jamesrnorwood 17:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enthusiastic support. Marvelous article; it was a joy and pleasure to peer review. I learned heaps about Balzac. Shoot, I may even go out and read, if not this novel, then another Balzac. More articles like this *must* be written, and Scartol is doing his best to fulfill it. This article being an FA would be a great service to the project. In addition, the prose is excellent and the information included is interesting and educational. Good work! --Christine (talk) 20:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: rather than saying:

  • Original French is here.

it would be more descriptive to say:

(or something similar), so the reader knows what they're clicking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/La_Cousine_Bette/archive1&oldid=1078802340"